While it's true that personal taste is entirely subjective, there is also such a thing as "shared taste", which more or less lend itself to a particular band's or artist's popularity.

But there are also criteria. And these criteria have been established for quite some time in the annals of rock and music criticism. You may not care for or pay attention to the critics, but like them or not, that doesn't mean their criteria is necessarily bad...it may just be different than yours. But in most cases, a cross-section of critics usually arrive at the same place.

And it's one thing to say "I like this", but it's quite another to use properly defined terms used to either support or disprove this nebulous thing we call "greatness".

So, you may decide for yourself that Led Zep's borrowings - what is properly called "artistic license" - is one criteria for establishing "greatness". Someone else may disagree as to the relevance of that particular point with the belief that it happens so often in so many genres as to be not so consequential.

At the same time, someone else may look to record sales or chart positions to measure greatness, seeing commercial activity as a more-or-less neutral arbiter of collective tastes.

Let me see if I can explain by example. I like The Beatles and Herman's Hermits. They both entertain me. But if I want to call either one great, I have to move beyond my emotional reaction to them and detach myself emotionally to really think about what each group actually created. When I do, I find that Herman's Hermits doesn't have all the qualities that The Beatles do. Part of it is talent, part ingenuity, part is performance. One group merely entertains while the other entertains and impresses.

I'm glad you brought up music critics. This harks back to a thread I started way back about critics vs. fans. And most here were very dismissive of critics, as I recall. But I think critics do have a place, but we also have to look critically at what the critics have written. Rock music criticism is much more splintered now, with fans of certain type of music specializing in writing about that music. But I agree with you that looking at all critical opinion is a valid piece of the puzzle.

I don't have the perfect formula to define greatness, so I reserve the right for anyone to question the label of greatness attached to any musical artist. I just want them to present criteria beyond personal reactions, otherwise the discussion is just about personal taste. Yes, this really isn't a good answer, but I think greatness has a meaning beyond simply taste.

Fair enough.

Again, I believe it's primarily about defining our terms and applying those terms equitably when we go into what I call "critic's mode".

In the art world, it's been argued many times whether critics are even necessary any more. Of course, they're necessary, but less so. And the reason for this is that we can quickly (through technology) find other examples to support our case for what we like and what we don't, regardless of the critics.

However, it also means we have thousands of mediocre critics instead of a few dozen very good ones...which is fine with something as egalitarian as popular music, but more problematic with something more refined, like, say, post-modern jazz.

Even talent is problematic from a critical standpoint, because it's harder to pin down than something like production values or songwriting. In that sense, it's no wonder so much music is collaborative in nature, because each participant brings something different to the table.

Taylor Swift is undeniably talented, but she is working in a rather flattened, synthesized genre of modern pop-country music in which the bars for achievement aren't very high, and it's a bit harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Now, she may very well go on to do "great" things, but I think it's yet to be seen....

Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

This is how the conversation got started in the first place, in another thread. While not defending the plagiarism, some of us poked around with the fact that Led Zeppelin's interpretations were what put blues music on the rock and roll map. I also had read that it was the British bands, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones, among them, that were the first to take the American blues and infuse those sounds into rock music, which was something that no American band had done. A sea change on rock music. So the conversation was a mixture of trying to tease apart where Led Zeppelin had gone wrong because of plagiarism, with what they had achieved in the overall years, in terms of their whole body of work. The issue boiled down to the fact that Led Zeppelin didn't credit any, not even one song, in the early part of their career, and they blatently took credit for songs they didn't write. So it was a bit more serious than just the idea of artistic license. :(

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates. I'll leave you to it.

Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

This is how the conversation got started in the first place, in another thread. While not defending the plagiarism, some of us poked around with the fact that Led Zeppelin's interpretations were what put blues music on the rock and roll map. I also had read that it was the British bands, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones, among them, that were the first to take the American blues and infuse those sounds into rock music, which was something that no American band had done. A sea change on rock music. So the conversation was a mixture of trying to tease apart where Led Zeppelin had gone wrong because of plagiarism, with what they had achieved in the overall years, in terms of their whole body of work. The issue boiled down to the fact that Led Zeppelin didn't credit any, not even one song, in the early part of their career, and they blatently took credit for songs they didn't write. So it was a bit more serious than just the idea of artistic license. :(

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates. I'll leave you to it.

We've had them all before. I didn't start this one, however, so don't go blamin' me.

And yes, I've had the Thomas Edison / Nikola Tesla debate many times, too. And I *still* feel bad every time I discuss it.

You wouldn't believe how good I am at debating that one. Who knew? hahaha!

Thank you. You make the point many musicians agree with, Artistic licence. Not too many musicians are running around crying that Led Zeppelin stole their music. In fact, just the opposite. It's their own interpertaions that made them stand out. If they had played each song that people claim they stole verbatim, then you would have an argument. Look no further than the Stones if you want to claim plagerisim. Again, the Stones had their own take, which was is unique.

This is how the conversation got started in the first place, in another thread. While not defending the plagiarism, some of us poked around with the fact that Led Zeppelin's interpretations were what put blues music on the rock and roll map. I also had read that it was the British bands, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones, among them, that were the first to take the American blues and infuse those sounds into rock music, which was something that no American band had done. A sea change on rock music. So the conversation was a mixture of trying to tease apart where Led Zeppelin had gone wrong because of plagiarism, with what they had achieved in the overall years, in terms of their whole body of work. The issue boiled down to the fact that Led Zeppelin didn't credit any, not even one song, in the early part of their career, and they blatently took credit for songs they didn't write. So it was a bit more serious than just the idea of artistic license. :(

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates. I'll leave you to it.

We've had them all before. I didn't start this one, however, so don't go blamin' me.

And yes, I've had the Thomas Edison / Nikola Tesla debate many times, too. And I *still* feel bad every time I discuss it.

You wouldn't believe how good I am at debating that one. Who knew? hahaha!

C'mon Yoga, you know me, I don't blame anyone :) . I just find it funny that folks can debate the greatness of a band like Led Zeppelin, pick them apart and claim they were thieves. Their music has brought joy to millions. Sure some hate them, but most dont. The plagerism debate, good or bad encompasses every form of art as Matty states correctly. FWIW, haven't been around here that much so I missed how this thread evolved.

I should step in and say that I didn't mean "artistic license" as an excuse for taking someone else music and passing it off as your own. No matter how much "Derivative" could have its own section in the record store.

But as in everything, there are principles and there is practice. There is the principle of not recording one attributable note without a proper reference. And then there is the practice of either covering the song faithfully as a tribute or paying homage through interpretation of a previous work.

Where that line is depends a good deal upon whom is asked. But where the "license" part comes in is in the end product, the new music created out of the old music and whether or not it stands on its own. I think that's the most important question. (The rest is all about royalties and lawyers.)

Haven't you had this conversation before. It's like spinning plates. I'll leave you to it.

We've had them all before. I didn't start this one, however, so don't go blamin' me.

And yes, I've had the Thomas Edison / Nikola Tesla debate many times, too. And I *still* feel bad every time I discuss it.

You wouldn't believe how good I am at debating that one. Who knew? hahaha!

C'mon Yoga, you know me, I don't blame anyone :) . I just find it funny that folks can debate the greatness of a band like Led Zeppelin, pick them apart and claim they were thieves. Their music has brought joy to millions. Sure some hate them, but most dont. The plagerism debate, good or bad encompasses every form of art as Matty states correctly.

Some perspective is in order, I agree. All I know is that if it weren't for the forum, I wouldn't like Led Zeppelin as much as I do now. Maybe I've been brainwashed. :)

I should step in and say that I didn't mean "artistic license" as an excuse for taking someone else music and passing it off as your own. No matter how much "Derivative" could have its own section in the record store.

But as in everything, there are principles and there is practice. There is the principle of not recording one attributable note without a proper reference. And then there is the practice of either covering the song faithfully as a tribute or paying homage through interpretation of a previous work.

Where that line is depends a good deal upon whom is asked. But where the "license" part comes in is in the end product, the new music created out of the old music and whether or not it stands on its own. I think that's the most important question. (The rest is all about royalties and lawyers.)

Perhaps, I jumped into this without doing the proper research, and I am now a bit curious as to which songs Zeppelin did take and which artists this thread apply's. Similar arguments abound, the Smith's There is a light vs Radiohead's Knives out, It is almost note for note similar. Though Johnny Greenwood did write it as a homage to Johnny Marr :)

When I started the thread about the '5 greatest bands', as I said it was inspired by the much-maligned introduction speech Jack Black gave for Zeppelin. It was such an audacious and indefensible thing to say they were the best band ever. And yet I grudgingly admired that he had the stones to do it.

I have found that the only real purpose any of these polls and lists have is to stir up debate, some of which is heated and even angry. Is that a good thing? I don't know. Often these message boards make me think about the Monty Python sketch about the man who is looking for a good argument (second nod for the Pythons in this thread). I freely admit that's what I'm looking for sometimes too. I want to find someone with an opposing viewpoint so I can go back and forth with them a bit and see where it leads.

When I started the thread about the '5 greatest bands', as I said it was inspired by the much-maligned introduction speech Jack Black gave for Zeppelin. It was such an audacious and indefensible thing to say they were the best band ever. And yet I grudgingly admired that he had the stones to do it.

I have found that the only real purpose any of these polls and lists have is to stir up debate, some of which is heated and even angry. Is that a good thing? I don't know. Often these message boards make me think about the Monty Python sketch about the man who is looking for a good argument (second nod for the Pythons in this thread). I freely admit that's what I'm looking for sometimes too. I want to find someone with an opposing viewpoint so I can go back and forth with them a bit and see where it leads.

Anyway devildavid I'm really glad you're posting more.

Thanks. It's nice to know my contributions here are appreciated. I tend to be reserved in a group of people, even online. Many times in the past I have typed something only to not post it. With so much time on my hands, I have been able to express things that usually just simmer on my back burner.

Maybe 25 yrs. ago, I was sitting in a pizza shop listening to Gonna' Miss You by the Rolling Stones. I always thought that song was a piece of crap. However, I was going through a permanent breakup with a girl, was feeling hungup, and I started thinking the song was brilliant, as it fit my mood. Now I think it is a great song about a specific situation. In fact I thought a certain line actually offered some encouragement for the future. You know that line about some "girls just dying to meet you".

Great conversation and sorry I got to it late.I will keep my opinion short. I very much enjoy reading print interviews or listening to audio interviews with various musical artists.

Musical taste and preference are our own. I cannot tell somone who loves Beyonce that they are wrong to love her. She is an electric performer who happens to record what I refer to as disposable pop. Can she whip up an audience moreso that Tom Waits - yes! Does she have a better voice - yes. Will her songs last as longs as his - I would doubt it. She is the biggest pop star in the world and I have decided to compare her to an artist that realy isn't well known outsde of certain circles. And the reason is "Influence". Her influence on the music itself will never touch Tom's. Her influence in style & fashion obviously will. So let'sow change the buzz word to "Musical influence".

I completely understand DD's opinion on Led Zep. And no matter what ones opinion is of the band, the fact remains that they musically influenced so much of what came after them.

On a personal note - I dig Geddy Lee's voice. It is so unique and annoying that you just got to love it.

I tend to agree. But it must be said that we simply won't know the extent of a newer band/artist's influence until much later.

Where Bevonce is concerned, she and her original group Destiny's Child have already influenced many of today's R&B artists. Yes, a good portion of that is image and style - both of which move faster through the culture, but the music has its progeny as well...Rihanna and Ciara, for example.

I'll also add that 'influence' in the R&B and Hip-hop worlds extends much wider to the producers like Danger Mouse, Timbaland, Neptunes, etc. With some of these acts, there are literally small armies of contributors...sometimes within a single track.

And while I also agree in part with the "disposable pop" label, occasionally some standout compositions do rise to the top of the glittering, glamorous heap.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc. They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it. Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been. It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television. And it's gotten much more difficult. But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc. They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it. Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been. It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television. And it's gotten much more difficult. But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc. They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it. Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been. It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television. And it's gotten much more difficult. But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

The Sonics were great....they started playing again around 6 years ago and I've seen them a number of times, mostly in Europe. Gerry Roslie's voice is pretty much shot now, but it was still good enough at first and nobody could believe we actually were seeing them play!

Do you know the Monks? Another incredible band from the early 60s that had a short, but fertile, shelf life.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc. They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it. Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been. It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television. And it's gotten much more difficult. But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

I recently posted a thread on the new Ben Harper / Charlie Musselwhite album collaboration -- seemingly right up your alley. If you're not interested, that's fine, of course, and if a "light bulb" didn't go off for you, then maybe you're not on the market for new music. But that information is there for the taking, re: new music, and if you don't know anything about Ben Harper, then now's a good time to learn, or to ask. If your curiosity doesn't get peaked in those situations, then you have to ask yourself if you really have the curiosity to explore new music yourself.

That's how I utilize the forum, and that's the reason why I own at least 20 new albums that I can attribute to reading, asking questions, and participating in this forum. I don't mean to call you out on this, I'm just saying that this forum is not only a great place to congregate for discussions, but also a resource for consideration of "new" music. :)

I tend to agree. But it must be said that we simply won't know the extent of a newer band/artist's influence until much later.

Where Bevonce is concerned, she and her original group Destiny's Child have already influenced many of today's R&B artists. Yes, a good portion of that is image and style - both of which move faster through the culture, but the music has its progeny as well...Rihanna and Ciara, for example.

I'll also add that 'influence' in the R&B and Hip-hop worlds extends much wider to the producers like Danger Mouse, Timbaland, Neptunes, etc. With some of these acts, there are literally small armies of contributors...sometimes within a single track.

And while I also agree in part with the "disposable pop" label, occasionally some standout compositions do rise to the top of the glittering, glamorous heap.

Rock n' Roll, it ain't. But we knew that.

To be honest Matty - I don't see the influence of Destiny's Child. I see the copying of it, but the influence from the music was already there. There is nothing they are doing now that the Pointer Sisters and LaBelle hadn't done 20 years earlier.

Now we can say that Destiny's Child has reintroduced that style to audiences, thereby influencing teenagers to sing and dance. But my question remains the same; will any of their songs remain a lightning bolt for artists 25 years from now. Beyonce has a long career ahead of her, I guess time will tell.

Now the other example I gave has written and recorded music that will continue to pop up long after he is dead. Examples - Downtown Train; Jersey Girl; and many others. Waits is a wordsmith. And the defining pieces of music are melody, instrumentation and lyrics.

It is here that the future will look at. Again, that is why I call it disposable Pop.

As for all contemporary music, I just don't know. There may just me another Tom Waits out there which alludes me because I no longer look for new music.

I tend to agree. But it must be said that we simply won't know the extent of a newer band/artist's influence until much later.

Where Bevonce is concerned, she and her original group Destiny's Child have already influenced many of today's R&B artists. Yes, a good portion of that is image and style - both of which move faster through the culture, but the music has its progeny as well...Rihanna and Ciara, for example.

I'll also add that 'influence' in the R&B and Hip-hop worlds extends much wider to the producers like Danger Mouse, Timbaland, Neptunes, etc. With some of these acts, there are literally small armies of contributors...sometimes within a single track.

And while I also agree in part with the "disposable pop" label, occasionally some standout compositions do rise to the top of the glittering, glamorous heap.

Rock n' Roll, it ain't. But we knew that.

To be honest Matty - I don't see the influence of Destiny's Child. I see the copying of it, but the influence from the music was already there. There is nothing they are doing now that the Pointer Sisters and LaBelle hadn't done 20 years earlier.

Now we can say that Destiny's Child has reintroduced that style to audiences, thereby influencing teenagers to sing and dance. But my question remains the same; will any of their songs remain a lightning bolt for artists 25 years from now. Beyonce has a long career ahead of her, I guess time will tell.

Now the other example I gave has written and recorded music that will continue to pop up long after he is dead. Examples - Downtown Train; Jersey Girl; and many others. Waits is a wordsmith. And the defining pieces of music are melody, instrumentation and lyrics.

It is here that the future will look at. Again, that is why I call it disposable Pop.

As for all contemporary music, I just don't know. There may just me another Tom Waits out there which alludes me because I no longer look for new music.

Then, I hope you'll just take my word for it that the recent influence is there (in addition to more classic R&B, but not in spite of it.), and personally, I think Beyonce herself is particularly attuned to both her legacy and her current status as one of the biggest pop stars on the scene.

Naturally, I'm not making any remote comparison to her music and that of Tom Waits, who has been bruising knuckles on the music scene since well before Sasha Fierce was ever born. Nevertheless, Tom still remains somewhat of a niche, eclectic act.

But I agree...in art criticism terms, influence also denotes a degree of importance. Influence can lead to good or bad music, but importance means that something new or innovative is added to the mix that leads to whole schools of creativity.

I can't say there's another Tom Waits, per se; for one, because he's such an original but also because he's an intentional throwback to a more distant age. However, I can absolutely point to some single-minded auteurs who are blazing their own trails with impressive results...and I do, often.

I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer; my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.

She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

"Now admittedly, I don't really listen to much contmporary music. But that is one reason I can't just agree that it is all bad. Without evidence, I have to withhold my opinion. But it also seems to me that all contemporary artists are being unfairly lumped in with the so-called bad music of the most popular artists."

------------

"Good" or "Bad" is obviously subjective, but it makes me laugh when people write off contemporary music because 99% of the time they are basing it on what they heard on the radio, or saw on the Grammys, etc. They just aren't much into contemporary music so know little about it. Which is fine, just don't criticise what you don't know....but of course they don't know what they don't know.

There is a huge of amount of new music and always has been. It's always been harder to find music from independent artists and labels because they don't have the budget to get into the Top 40 or on television. And it's gotten much more difficult. But it's easy to do if you care enough about it.

When people complain about modern music I usually ask them about the bands they've seen lately (it is always events at giant sports venues or venues holding 1,000s of people) or the contemporary bands they don't like (always well-funded, well-known bands).

I don't know a single person that regularly goes to to gigs (small venues, new bands, proper indie bands not major label "Indie" bands, etc) that complains about contemporary music.

You definitely get the point I'm making. I don't like to express an uninformed opinion, especially one based on music that is the most popular, because that music is a very narrow represention of the whole of what is available.

You should post more often here. You may think the general taste in music here is different than yours, but I like the different perspective you bring. There is a lot of music I love that doesn't get discussed much but I still find it fun and interesting to go back and forth on different topics. I think I share your opinion that rock music is at its most potent when the songs are short and full of energy. I really love 50's rock and blues that were simple emotional expressions. I know you love garage rock, which is also a favorite genre of mine. One of my favorite garage rock songs is The Sonics "Psycho". That song never fails to put a smile on my face.

I recently posted a thread on the new Ben Harper / Charlie Musselwhite album collaboration -- seemingly right up your alley. If you're not interested, that's fine, of course, and if a "light bulb" didn't go off for you, then maybe you're not on the market for new music. But that information is there for the taking, re: new music, and if you don't know anything about Ben Harper, then now's a good time to learn, or to ask. If your curiosity doesn't get peaked in those situations, then you have to ask yourself if you really have the curiosity to explore new music yourself.

That's how I utilize the forum, and that's the reason why I own at least 20 new albums that I can attribute to reading, asking questions, and participating in this forum. I don't mean to call you out on this, I'm just saying that this forum is not only a great place to congregate for discussions, but also a resource for consideration of "new" music. :)

I think that it's hard for me to be influenced to try "new" music through this forum for two reasons. One, is that much of what is discussed and that I sample on Youtube just doesn't immediately grab me, and so I have limited exposure to the music. Two, I have found that for me, people close to me have a greater impact on getting me to listen to something "new". That is because I will be exposed to it more and have access to CD's to try. But even then, I have tried things that other people close to me like that just don't do anything for me.

But this doesn't mean I don't find it interesting to learn of other people's musical tastes. I find it very interesting, and that is why the music forum is my favorite forum now. I started in the Sox forum, but that forum tends to have too many personality conflicts which takes some of the fun away. I guess music lovers are cool people who can disagree without making it personal

The Sonics were great....they started playing again around 6 years ago and I've seen them a number of times, mostly in Europe. Gerry Roslie's voice is pretty much shot now, but it was still good enough at first and nobody could believe we actually were seeing them play!

Do you know the Monks? Another incredible band from the early 60s that had a short, but fertile, shelf life.

The Monks take it almost to the point where weird and pop completely separate for me. I enjoy music that some may find weird but my ears hear elements of pop. It's kind of hard to explain, but I know it when I hear it.

I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer; my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.

She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

A good business deal, but hardly makes Beyonce influential, IMO.

I never said she was a composer. She's a pop/r&b singer. A very successful one, at that, and it's within that area of pop/glam/r&b/dance that I think her impact has been/will be felt.

I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer; my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.

She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

A good business deal, but hardly makes Beyonce influential, IMO.

I never said she was a composer. She's a pop/r&b singer. A very successful one, at that, and it's within that area of pop/glam/r&b/dance that I think her impact has been/will be felt.

Of course, you may disagree.

I do. I can't see a single positive influence/impact of a half naked woman writhing around singing other people's songs....and little long-term influence of any type.

Look at even the ultimate song stylist, Elvis Presley. How many times have you heard a musician cite him as an influence compared to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, all the Bluesmen, etc?